IUCN regularly issue updates of their famous "Red List of Threatened Species". The latest results for mammals show at least 1,141 of the world's 5,487 recognised mammal species to be threatened with extinction. Some, unfortunately even within the sustainability ranks, try to justify conservation via Economism, arguing that it pays to conserve an animal and 'sell' it many times over to tourists, rather than killing it. According to this argument however, the rarer (i.e. the more endangered) an animal, the higher would be its economic value. So it would pay to decimate numbers reducing them to an 'optimum' endangered level, that would also minimise human-animal conflict. Is this what is actually taking place? It would be interesting to research a correlation between countries that have successfully developed mass tourism in protected areas and those with a high percentage of endangered species. Some endangered species percentages in popular nature tourism destinations are: Australia 16%, Tanzania 9%, USA 8.4%, Kenya 7%, Tanzania 9%, Belize 4.6%, Costa Rica 3.5%